Page images
PDF
EPUB

DEPOSITIONS

STATE LAWS.

209

deposition was objected to at every stage. Plaintiff below had a verdict. A writ of error was taken to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals which certified to the Supreme Court the following question:

"Q. Was the order of the circuit court, directing the president of the Hanks Dental Association, the defendant in that court, to appear before a master or commissioner appointed pursuant to the provisions of section 870 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York, valid and authorized under the act of March 9, 1892."

The Supreme Court after reviewing the law and authorities (United States v. Fifty Boxes, 92 Fed. Rep. 601; Nat. Cash Reg. Co. v. Leland, 77 Fed. Rep. 242; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Wilder, 92 Fed. Rep. 953; Shellabarger v. Oliver, 64 Fed. Rep. 306; Despeaux v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 81 Fed. Rep. 897; Zych v. American Car & Foundry Co., 127 Fed. Rep. 723; Smith v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 110 Fed. Rep. 341; Camden Railway v. Stetson, 177 U. S. 172; Union Pacific v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U. S. 337; Tabor v. Indianapolis Journal, 66 Fed. Rep. 423; Seeley v. Kansas City Star, 71 Fed. Rep. 554; Ex parte Fiske, 113 U. S. 713) answered the question in the negative, and held that the court had no power to subject the party to such an examination. Ib.

§ 13. Complaint to Commission, how Made-Investigations, how Conducted. That any person, firm, corporation, or association, or any mercantile, agricultural, or manufacturing society, or any body politic or municipal organization complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition, which shall briefly state the facts; whereupon a statement of the charges thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the

same in writing within a reasonable time, to be specified by the Commission. If such common carrier, within the time specified, shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, said carrier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular violation of law thus complained of. If such carrier shall not satisfy the complaint within the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the Commission to investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper.

Complaints by State Railroad Commissions.- Said Commission shall in like manner investigate any complaint forwarded by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any State or Territory, at the request of such commissioner or commission, and may institute any inquiry on its own motion in the same manner and to the same effect as though complaint had been made. No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant.

Object and Scope of Section 13.- This section defines the mode of instituting proceedings before the Commission, and defines what the petition of complainant must show, and power of the Commission to compel a written answer by the carrier. It makes it their duty to investigate any complaint properly brought be fore the Commission by any person, whether such complainant shall or shall not be able to establish direct damage or not. It makes it the duty of the Commission to institute any inquiry or investigation which it may deem proper of its own volition. It provides for reparation by an offending carrier, whereby it may be relieved from liability or obligation to comply with any order made against it. It defines the mode of procedure before the Commission and makes special provisions for com

WHO MAY INVOKE RELIEF.

211

plaints filed by a Railroad Commission or Railroad Commissioners of any State.

Who may Invoke Enforcement of the Act" Any Person." The duty which the act imposes on the Interstate Commerce Commission is a public duty. It is a duty which involves the constitutional rights and privileges of the citizen. "Any person may invoke the Commission to discharge that duty, which the law imposes, who files with it a proper petition or complaint setting forth a violation of the act, or of any of its provisions, whether that person be directly interested as a shipper or not; or whether the petitioner has or has not sustained any direct damage (April, 1904). Interstate Com. Co. v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25.

In the case cited, the petition was filed by William Randolph Hearst, against certain carriers engaged in carrying and transporting coal. The petitioner was not a shipper nor directly interested in shipping, mining, or selling coal. He did not claim to have suffered direct damage, but complained as a citizen to compel the carriers referred to in his petition to cease and desist from violating the various provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, as set forth in his complaint. Defendants raised the question as to the right of the complainant to institute any proceeding, investigation, or inquiry under the act. On this point the court said: "It is provided in the act to regulate commerce, section 13, that 'Any person, firm, corporation, etc., complaining of anything done, or omitted to be done, by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, ia contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition,' etc. And certain procedure is provided for, and (said Commission) may institute any inquiry on its own motion, in the same manner and to the same effect as though complaint had been made,' and the section concludes: 'No complaint shall, at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant.""

"In the face of this mandatory requirement," says Mr. Justice DAY," that the complaint shall not be dismissed because of the want of direct damage, to the complainant, no alternative is left the Commission but to investigate the complaint if it presents matter within the purview of the act and the powers granted to the Commission." Ib.

§ 14. Report of Commission, how Made. That whenever an investigation shall be made by said Commission, it shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall include the findings of fact upon which the conclusions of the Commission are based, together with its recommendation as to what reparation, if any, should be made by the common carrier to any party or parties who may be found to have been injured; and such findings so made shall thereafter, in all judicial proceedings, be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found.

All reports of investigations made by the Commission shall be entered of record, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the party who may have complained, and to any common carrier that may have been complained of.

Report, how Published. The Commission may provide for the publication of its reports and decisions in such form and manner as may be best adapted for public information and use, and such authorized publications shall be competent evidence of the reports and decisions of the Commission therein contained, in all courts of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof. The Commission may also cause to be printed for early distribution its annual reports. (As amended March 2, 1889.)

Object and Scope of Section 14.-This section provides for the reports which the Commission must make, and the findings of fact upon which the conclusions arrived at in any report are based, and declares that such findings shall be prima facie evidence of the facts found. The section also declares how the reports of the Commission may be published, and makes official reports evidence without further authentication.

FINDINGS

BURDEN OF PROOF.

213

Commission are Experts. Whether the great Commission to which Congress has primarily intrusted the important duty imposed upon it, is or is not to be regarded as technically experts is not open to question, in view of the fact that they are authorized to execute and enforce, through the Federal courts, the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. The findings of that body are declared to be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated, and are entitled to the highest consideration, and if its orders based thereon are in conformity with the law they must be enforced. Interstate Com. Co. v. Louisville, 118 Fed. Rep. 613 (July, 1902, Cir. Ct. So. Dist. Ga.).

Burden of Proof-Findings of Commission Prima Facie Evidence. The findings and conclusions of the Interstate Commerce Commission, upon the testimony taken by it, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained, and are presumed to be correct. A finding that charges made by the carrier are unreasonable and unjust throws upon the carrier the burden of proof to sustain its claim that such findings are erroneous. Interstate Com. Co. v. Louisville Railroad, 118 Fed. Rep. 613 (July, 1902, Cir. Ct. So. Dist. Ga.).

§ 15. Commission to Notify Carrier of Violations of LawCompliance of Carrier, Effect of. That if in any case in which an investigation shall be made by said Commission it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the Commission, either by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence, that anything has been done or omitted to be done in violation of the provisions of this act, or of any law cognizable by said Commission, by any common carrier, or that any injury or damage has been sustained by the party or parties complaining, or by other parties aggrieved in consequence of any such violation, it shall be the duty of the Commission to forthwith cause a copy of its report in respect thereto to be delivered to such common carrier, together with a notice to said common carrier to cease and desist from

« PreviousContinue »